If all of life sprang from a common ancestor--a protist--as example, the fossil record would show a gradual transition from that initial organism to higher life forms: gradual macroevolution, or what Gould and others spoke of as gradualism.

The fossil record is a very accurate record of the history of the origin of homo sapiens and the other complex life forms.

But it does not show this by any stretch of the imagination! Gould and many others have pointed out this flaw as did Darwin himself--Which is one reason, I believe, he came up with Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek) which has more problems than the lack of gradualism he attempted to explain away.

Instead of gradualism, we find long periods of stasis where nothing seemed to be happening, interspersed with periods of sudden (relatively so-when we consider the billions of years of biotic history on earth, our island home) appearance of higher life forms.

Sorry but that's just not true. Evolution acts as a feedback loop tracking changes in the environment. If the environment is stable for long periods of time we'll see long periods of little morphological change. If the environment changes rapidly (geologically speaking) we'll see more rapid morphological change. There are clear examples of both occurrences in the fossil record.

Quote

The Cambrian Explosion is a good example of this.

OK, so you're ignorant of all the pre-Cambrian life forms that have been discovered, i.e. the Ediacaran fauna.

Quote

These higher evolved organisms appeared seemingly out of nowhere with no fossil record leading up to that appearance--fully formed and ready to compete in their environment.

Tell us, what would a not fully formed animal look like?

Sorry doofus, but the fossil record 'sampling rate' is way too low to accurately record every step in a transitional sequence, especially if the environment/morphological changes are happening relatively rapidly. Scientists have known this for about two centuries now.

--------------JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistanceby Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

Sorry doofus, but the fossil record 'sampling rate' is way too low to accurately record every step in a transitional sequence, especially if the environment/morphological changes are happening relatively rapidly. Scientists have known this for about two centuries now.

This!

If every organism was fossilized, we'd be sitting on nothing but fossils and none of the material from those organisms would be available to the rest of the planet.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".

No, that's NOT a mistake. You guys haven't added much of anything to Darwin's initial musings for the last 150 years. Just fluff, smoke and mirrors as if you are attempting to support a faith.

We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.

Quote

(at least no one with a clue about evolution or evolutionary theory) teaches that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter. Your statement shows how ignorant you are about evolution and evolutionary theory. It also shows that your agenda is a religious one since your remarks are meant to be insulting to atheists and secular humanists. If ID is strictly scientific, and not a religious agenda, WHY do you care at all whether someone is an atheist or a secular humanist? And why doesn't it bother you that your religion teaches that humans were magically morphed from dust and a rib?

My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.

And I can assure you that, to those of us who do not take the teachings of evolutionary biologists seriously, it appears that at some point, man 'magically morphed' from an apeoid.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.

Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it.

Quote

The ape to man thing is what bugs you creationists the most, isn't it? To you, an ape (or ape-like life form) is a lowly, stupid, soul-less, unclean animal, and humans (or at least 'god-fearing' humans) are exceptional, ensouled, clean beings who are specially created in the image of "God", right? Humans, being so 'special', just couldn't have evolved from a filthy ape, could they? And there's just no way that an ape could be anywhere close to the image of "God", eh?

No...LOL...that scripture does not mean that God looks like man. Nor is there anything in Darwinistic theory that would conflict with my religious beliefs. In fact, there are a few (a few but not many) Christian believers who also embrace Darwinism.

I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do. It's simply scientifically silly.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genomehttp://http/....ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.

Not to derail the thread, but this is a fascinating claim.

First, I have some people that you need to meet. Perhaps you can explain this concept to them. Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true.

Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.

Quote

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!

Quote

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.

Quote

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.

Quote

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.

Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.

Quote

Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.

Quote

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".

Quote

No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.

On WHAT matter? There are TONS of papers that support ID. Are you expecting to read a PDF that begins, "OK, this paper is about ID science"......You won't find any of those because ID is not in itself a separarte science. We study biology, chemistry and physics just as anyone else does.

And, if this discussion continues to fruition, I will be happy to show you all the science and math that one would ever care to see on the subject...*wink*

Quote

No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!

No, I can't think of any reason for an archeologist to employ the predictive nature of probability mathematics such as CSI. I was referring to semiotics which both bodies of thought employ.

Quote

That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.

If you don't think OM exhibits intelligence, then I'll wager you have not studied the field in depth. I would suggest you begin with the double slit experiments where the presence of an intelligent observer affects how a particle behaves.

But yes, ID requires a designer, but it does NOT require that we know who/what that designer is any more than it is required that you know the design engineer of the subway system every morning before you can ride it to work in the morning.

Quote

You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.

There are a TON of papers out there that support ID. I will get into a few as we progress.

However, I understand that Darwinism says nothing about abiogenesis, but here is the deal: Many people use Darwinism in their overall belief system to justify natural origins without intelligent interference. It is to the latter that I refere to when I throw out abiogenesis. It all comes together to compose a body of thought called Secular Humanism.

Quote

Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.

It's just a field of study...nothing more or less. What is the theory of biology? What is the theory of chemistry? Sounds silly to even ask that, doesn't it....Doesn't mean we don't study chem and bios...etc.

Quote

ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.

This is correct...ID is not, in itself, a science. It is the study of science from a different angle: We may see design in a system or artifact when YOU are not even looking for design as you study it. That's all ID is.

And you sum up science very well. I just wish it were true that Darwinists followed your advice on this. If they did, there would be no such thing as a "theory of evolution" taught to innocent young minds. A hypothesis that has never been experimentally tested to take it to the theory level, yes.....but a theory....no.

Quote

How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".

I will get into QM design when the time is right...Don't touch that dial....

But with sudden bursts of speciation so solidly shown in the fossil record, doesn't that lend creedence to about ANY pet theory of origins other than Darwinism i.e. gradualism? :)))

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

Jerry,

Not all particles are entangled. Your QM argument lacks coherence.

Tracy:

Particles that are created at the same time in the same system become entangled. Did the big bang not create all particles in this universe at the same time? With me on that?

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

I didn't say anything about "drug resistant bacteria due to mutations". I said "some aspects of evolutionary processes". The particulars (or aspects) regarding mutations, drift, stasis, punctuated equilibrium, junk DNA, epigenetics, speciation, selection, extinction, adaptation, variation, convergence, recombination, gene flow, etc., etc., etc. are regularly debated ("contested") by scientists. Scientists who agree that evolution occurs don't necessarily agree on the particulars of how it occurs. Sometimes the debates can be quite contentious, such as in the recent debates about the Encode claims. That's not necessarily a bad thing though because such debates ultimately help lead to more research and a better understanding.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

2) CSI is probability mathematics now? What is the probability that I was designed then? how do you know? Calculate my probability.

3) But we know the LIMITS of the designer of a subway. If you don't know the limits of the designer, then you just assume that it can do anything (which you do). Does the designer have any limits? If yes, why? How do you know? If not, why? How do you know? Can the designer create anything? How do you know?

These are all questions that can be answered in forensics, anthropology, etc. They cannot be answered for ID. In fact, as you state, you go out of your way to avoid answering them. Which means that you aren't really doing anything but making up stories.

Again, you need to meet some people. Maybe you can convince them that they are wrong about ID and the designer or you can convince them they are wrong about ID and the designer. But you people really need to get together and come up with one notion and stick to it.

4) Have you ever heard of "punctuated equilibria"? Just out of curiosity, I mean, I know it's ancient science and all. Do you understand the concept behind the Hardy-Weinberg equation and why it's relevant to this discussion? I guess not.

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.

we who?

do you have the moulding corpse of a scientist in your cellar?

do you think anyone gives a fuck what you think about science? I don't!

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Are you expecting to read a PDF that begins, "OK, this paper is about ID science"......You won't find any of those because ID is not in itself a separarte science. We study biology, chemistry and physics just as anyone else does.

And, if this discussion continues to fruition, I will be happy to show you all the science and math that one would ever care to see on the subject...*wink*

Yeah, I am expecting to read a journal article (not just a .pdf you dipshit) that says "This supports intelligent design creationism because X, Y and Z". Or just fucking X. Or *anything*. Because you dipshits haven't ever done anything worth a shit with your intelligent design creationism except make us laugh at you for years and years and years

you don't study shit at all, not just as anyone else does but not at all. That's why you spout endless reams of horseshittery about your misconceptions and misunderstandings. the reason why you don't respond to peer review or criticism is because you are too stupid to, which is a different problem than the part about you not actually studying any fucking thing whatsoever.

we are far past fruition, fruit. please post your bibliography. or whatever "show you all the science and math" means to you. sounds creepy.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

"This doesn't seem likely" is still not positive evidence of interference, tinkering, or front-loading of anything by anyone. They still conflate "We don't know yet" with "Goddidit".

Even if you could somehow pretend ID is a scientific idea, what possible use could it ever be? "Welp, this bit looks designed. Moving on..."

How does pretending bipedalism (or GULO damage or nylonase production or...) was a gift from somewhere, change how we deal with it?

Useless.

It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.

Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.

Eureka.....I have found it!

But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.

Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistanceby Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.

What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.

Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

"This doesn't seem likely" is still not positive evidence of interference, tinkering, or front-loading of anything by anyone. They still conflate "We don't know yet" with "Goddidit".

Even if you could somehow pretend ID is a scientific idea, what possible use could it ever be? "Welp, this bit looks designed. Moving on..."

How does pretending bipedalism (or GULO damage or nylonase production or...) was a gift from somewhere, change how we deal with it?

Useless.

It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.

Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.

Eureka.....I have found it!

But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.

Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.

Since it's apparent you can't support your claim with peer-reviewed work...

or calculate, measure, or otherwise determine CSI for anything...

what can ID do?

We already have a science/philosophical view of the universe. It's called science. Philosophy that is robust, testable, falsifiable is folded into science. Atoms were once a philosophical notion about dividing objects. Now, they are well tested, robust, science that is used to predict the behavior of millions of chemical reactions on a daily basis throughout the world.

what can ID do? Specifically. Predict anything? Determine a new result? Show why something happens the way it does?

Go ahead, I'll wait (and keep asking), I've been waiting for an ID proponent to do this for almost two decades.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genomehttp://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

You missed the point. IDiot-creationists are not pushing QM as 'the designer'. They're pushing "God" as 'the designer', whether they will openly and honestly admit it or not.

So you're claiming that "God" is made of particles? Who or what made "God", and is "God" made of the same particles as humans?

Are you claiming that alleged miracles are just a mistaken impression about natural QM processes/events? Do you tell the people you 'minister' that?

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistanceby Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.

What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.

Well hell son, I'd hate to make this hard for you. Tell you what, how about you learn this the same way I did?

Which, BTW, was reading a shitload of long papers. Examining them. Looking for flaws. Comparing results with other papers. Reading a lot of books. Comparing them (and BTW: the pro-ID books suck; bad writing, no science, poor arguments, impossible conclusions, etc). Generating my own conclusions instead of those handed to me by professors.

And you know what? I don't even have a graduate degree. I do this FOR FUN and because it's necessary to understand the science and the way the world works.

slacker

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

First, I have some people that you need to meet. Perhaps you can explain this concept to them. Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true.

No, they won't convince me of anything along that vein. There is nothing in the Christian conversion (unfortunately) that raises the IQ of the converted. Be careful who you listen to out there.

Quote

Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know?

You become educated. You learn that Hermeneutics is not some Arkansas farmer named Herman.

You then employ hermeneutics to ascertain truth in text. Not just the Bible....any compiled text of the similarity.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genomehttp://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

First, I have some people that you need to meet. Perhaps you can explain this concept to them. Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true.

No, they won't convince me of anything along that vein. There is nothing in the Christian conversion (unfortunately) that raises the IQ of the converted. Be careful who you listen to out there.

Quote

Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know?

You become educated. You learn that Hermeneutics is not some Arkansas farmer named Herman.

You then employ hermeneutics to ascertain truth in text. Not just the Bible....any compiled text of the similarity.

LOL

So, you have admitted that nothing will change your mind. So we're all just wanking here. You included. There is no evidence that will change your mind. You are functionally immune to evidence.

As far as listening to them... I don't even listen to you. I hear what you say and laugh at your inability to do even the things you claim to be able to do. (I'm still waiting for references and that CSI probability calculation.)

As far as the Bible, well, this is your thread. Let's have some fun.

Which of these passages is literal and which is metaphorical and why?

Luke 3:23–38

Matthew 1:1–17

And be careful, I just might surprise you with how much I've studied.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".

No, that's NOT a mistake. You guys haven't added much of anything to Darwin's initial musings for the last 150 years. Just fluff, smoke and mirrors as if you are attempting to support a faith.

We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.

Quote

(at least no one with a clue about evolution or evolutionary theory) teaches that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter. Your statement shows how ignorant you are about evolution and evolutionary theory. It also shows that your agenda is a religious one since your remarks are meant to be insulting to atheists and secular humanists. If ID is strictly scientific, and not a religious agenda, WHY do you care at all whether someone is an atheist or a secular humanist? And why doesn't it bother you that your religion teaches that humans were magically morphed from dust and a rib?

My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.

And I can assure you that, to those of us who do not take the teachings of evolutionary biologists seriously, it appears that at some point, man 'magically morphed' from an apeoid.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.

Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it.

Quote

The ape to man thing is what bugs you creationists the most, isn't it? To you, an ape (or ape-like life form) is a lowly, stupid, soul-less, unclean animal, and humans (or at least 'god-fearing' humans) are exceptional, ensouled, clean beings who are specially created in the image of "God", right? Humans, being so 'special', just couldn't have evolved from a filthy ape, could they? And there's just no way that an ape could be anywhere close to the image of "God", eh?

No...LOL...that scripture does not mean that God looks like man. Nor is there anything in Darwinistic theory that would conflict with my religious beliefs. In fact, there are a few (a few but not many) Christian believers who also embrace Darwinism.

I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do. It's simply scientifically silly.

It's a fairytale for grownups.

Wow, you've got a lot to learn. I'm only going to respond to some of your ridiculous comments because I have better things to do than trying to thoroughly educate you.

You obviously haven't been keeping up if you think that "Just fluff, smoke and mirrors" have been added to Darwin's "initial musings".

Actually, your religion does claim that the first man was created (by "God") from dust and that the first woman was created from the first man's rib. Many people take and teach that literally, and many don't.

The transition from ape-like life forms to humans didn't occur overnight and no credible scientist says it did. And there is a very strong scientific basis for postulating that humans evolved from ape-like and many previous life forms.

This doesn't make any sense:

"Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.

Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it."

What the hell are you talking about?

I didn't say that "God looks like man" or that "scripture" says that "God looks like man", although there is the stuff in "scripture" about "God" being a 'he/him/his' and the "Father" and the "Prince" and the "Lord" and the "King" (all masculine labels) and there's also some stuff about a character called "Jesus" who is alleged to have been a man and to have looked like a man and is also alleged to be "God" or "Lord" or "Father", etc., by many or all christians. Also, many christians think that "image" means "looks like" and that "God" looks like a man. Tell me, what does "God" the 'Father/Prince/Lord/King' look like?

What exactly is "Darwinistic theory"?

You said:

"I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do."

The vast majority of people who actually "study" evolution accept that evolution has occurred and does occur. Most people don't "study" evolution.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

"This doesn't seem likely" is still not positive evidence of interference, tinkering, or front-loading of anything by anyone. They still conflate "We don't know yet" with "Goddidit".

Even if you could somehow pretend ID is a scientific idea, what possible use could it ever be? "Welp, this bit looks designed. Moving on..."

How does pretending bipedalism (or GULO damage or nylonase production or...) was a gift from somewhere, change how we deal with it?

Useless.

It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.

Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.

Eureka.....I have found it!

But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.

Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.

"...the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna..."

All science so far!

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistanceby Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.

What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.

I know what point Tracy is making and if you were honest you would too. It has to do with your comment:

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Your attempt at diversionary games won't work here.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27